I thought I would do a follow up to the EssexSpiritGuides petition with regards to the upcoming change in the Fraudulent Mediums Act.

Everyone who wants to know what the new law will mean, you really should read this article.

By Meercat



I wouldn't normally have bothered as I have been posting over on their forum, but they have locked the thread down now.

http://www.thespiritguides.co.uk/article.aspx?a=451&p=39

A quick recap on the situation for those of you who have not been following it. The useless Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 is finally being repealed with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007 in April 2008. The new legislation will "prohibit conduct which misleads the average consumer and thereby causes, or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise".

The main part of the legislation that will cover Mediums in my opinion will be, and here's the small print....
Quote:

It defines vulnerability as:

infirmity (mental or physical):
age, and
credulity: This covers groups of consumers who may more readily
believe specific claims.

Lets take a look at the petition submitted by Ian Jones of EssexSpiritGuide:

Quote:

I have a few problems with the wording of this petition, which I raised on their website. But I will get to that shortly.

Now, we are talking about consumers here, people making a transaction, people paying for a service. It matters not what the price is, be it £1 or £500, if you are paying someone to provide the service of 'talking to the dead' then you are a consumer, and in my opinion, entitled to the same protection as any other consumer.

EssexSpiritGuide have seen this as a direct attack on Spiritualism, although Spiritualism is not mentioned in any of the legislation, nor is any other Religion come to that matter. It has nothing to do with attempting to alter or stop anyone's belief structure.
Spiritualism is based on the possibility of communicating with spirits, just where on the legislation does it 'single out Spiritualism'? If you have a few hours to kill, the full document is here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft931con.pdf

Where on there does it mention ANYTHING about Spiritualism? Or Religion? I'll save you the time of reading it, it doesn't. Anywhere. The bottom line is that this petition is worded in a way to sound emotive, to make it appear as though its an attack on a religion, when in fact it is only going to effect people who CHARGE MONEY. Yep, thats what it comes down to, money. Spiritualism will be as intact as before, the beliefs and faiths will remain unchanged, people will still be free to follow whatever Religion they choose to. But, if someone wants to make money out of 'talking to the dead', they had better be sure they can offer their customers the same level of consumer protection as any other business.

A few points were made by people posting comments on the website, one of them stating that they didn't see the problem with charging as Spiritualism promotes freewill, nobody is forced to pay and have a reading. This is true, but, this does not solve the problem of the vulnerable or the grieving. Does someone in a desperate state of grief really operate under freewill? Or are they led by a promise of speaking once again to a loved one?

Another comment was made that it was a "blanket legislation" and would not work as blanket legislation Quote:
Well actually no, it doesn't. It will only effect those who charge money and cannot justify what they are doing. Nobody else will be effected by it.

"But what about other Religions that charge money?" they shouted? "What about the fee's you have to pay for a wedding or a funeral? Thats a Religion taking money from you!" Well yes it is, but you're paying for a service, a tangible service, whether its expensive or not is down to personal opinion but it is a tangible service none the less. How many people have attended a wedding service where the Vicar has said "And now I leave it up to the congregations personal interpretation of the service to decide if these two are now joined in Holy Matrimony"? Any? No. Do you go to a funeral and just take the vicars word that they'll bury your loved one? No, you are paying for a tangible service.

Cant prove you talk to the dead? Well in my opinion you've got no right charging someone. I'm pretty sure the same Mediums would not pay a 'holistic builder' £12k to construct an invisible conservatory, "it IS there, but you have to believe...." So how do you continue without the new legislation effecting you? Easy. Don't charge money. You need money? Get a job like the rest of us, or prove, in repeatable, double blinded tests, that what you do is genuine. (Preferably not tests conducted by Gary Schwartz....)

There was an article written for EssexSpiritGuide about the change in law by Carole McEntee-Taylor, it has since been 'amended' after a couple of things were pointed out, but it still states that the legislation is discriminatory against Spiritualism. Its the old 'head banging against wall' syndrome. It has NOTHING to do with a Religion, it has EVERYTHING to do with providing a service that has to be paid for, how many times must I say that?

Her article takes me back to the Petition itself. You see they both include references to 'Acts'. The Religious Discrimination Act on the petition and Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006 on her article.
Both Acts are very worthwhile. Unfortunately they have NOTHING to do with the new legislation. Carole tells us:
Quote:

In respect of Mediums charging money for readings, this Act is irrelevant. Notice the "the provision of goods, facilities or services"? It sounds like Mediums charging money are covered by it doesn't it? Well they are not. Had she posted the full Act it would be plain to see why. For example:

"the provision of goods, facilities or services" is there to stop people receiving a lower quality of product or service than another because of their beliefs. It has nothing to do with allowing Mediums freedom to charge money.
"education" is there to allow people of any belief to receive the same quality of education as someone with a different belief. You get the idea?
Yet Carole has 'interpreted' it to 'fit the cause'.

Ian Jones states on his petition Quote:

Absolutely, but once again this has nothing to do with Mediums charging money. Spiritualists are protected by this Act in the same way as any other religions, but it does not protect them when it comes to financial transactions. It simply ensures that they will receive the same employment/services/products/education etc as everyone else of a different belief or faith.

Now, my biggest concern. The wording of the petition. I raised this a number of times on their website, and it was only on their final comment before locking the thread did I get a response.

The petition states:

"Whilst we agree that those who are deliberately fraudulent should be prosecuted it should be remembered that, other than the Church of England, Spiritualism is the only other legally recognised religion in this country. The others are only tolerated."

Carole repeated that in her article.
The problem here is, quite simply, that's a lie. Its incorrect. Its wrong. Spiritualism is NOT the only other legally recognised Religion in this Country, you are free to follow any Religion you choose in the UK. Yet this statement is made on a petition, to encourage people to sign it in an attempt to get the Government to do something.

This to me is fraudulent statement. For example, a person may read that statement and think "Spiritualism is the only other legally recognised religion in this country? Is it really? I didn't realise it was so important, i had better sign it". There is no financial loss to that person via the petition, although there could be if they went to see a Medium based on that 'fact'.

Anyone but me see the irony in that? Saying "Whilst we agree that those who are deliberately fraudulent should be prosecuted" and then following it up with a completely untrue statement.

When i first raised this point on their website, Carole removed that statement from her article and replaced it with:

Quote:

Another meaningless statement designed to give particular 'importance' to Spiritualism. ALL religions are recognised by an Act of Parliament.... The Religious Discrimination Act which was mentioned before.

On locking the thread, the Admin of the site closed with the following statement:

Quote:

You made a statement regarding the Law, Spiritualism, Christianity and 'every other Religion'. You made a specific, and incorrect statement regarding the Law and Spiritualism, which cannot be viewed in any other way than to add 'importance' to the petition. Why else would you include it?

Also, by saying this Country 'only tolerates' every other Religion apart from Christianity and Spiritualism, you are insulting every other Religion that practice in the UK. It may not have been made with deliberate intent to deceive, but it was certainly made recklessly.

Quote:

Its very 'clear' and 'comprehensive', its just incorrect. Because you're 'new' to it and because you had 'best intentions' does not excuse your lack of simple research into your own Religion before making statements about the Law.

The petition would have said exactly the same thing without the need to 'beef it up' with false statements about how important Spiritualism is to the Country. Spiritualism is as important as every other Religion. The ONLY reason you included those statements was to add 'importance' to your petition, if you can give me another reason why they were included, I'd love to hear it.

Quote:

So even though you know that the statements on there are false, you would not change it? Wouldn't you want to do everything you could to correct such a large mistake?

Quote:

How about those who have signed it after reading your incorrect statements? What about the respect for those who have been misled? They cannot remove their names once they have signed it. What about the respect for those of another Religion who read that to 'learn' that they are merely 'tolerated' in this Country?

Quote:

But done nothing to change the petition.

Quote:

I'm hoping the 'next stage' will not include any false statements or irrelevant references to Acts of Parliament that do not apply to the the case in question. I wish them luck with their campaign, and with people like Charles Sibley and Nina Knowland signing their petition, they'll need it.

Meercat